Autohost Risk Devolution

[psycomarauder]

So uakf.b, in lieu of our conversation, here is me requesting that you take down the risk devo host bot. Risk is a great genre but we cannot afford to have so many host bots. I would love to offer the public 1v1 and team games but since you are competing with me for FFA players, I cannot offer the risk community these luxuries. 2 lobbies = slower filling lobbies. and an impossibility to start a game during the slowest times of the day. I believe rod edited his message because he no longer supports the idea of multiple lobbies, but you'd have to ask him yourself.

[Era2.PurpLeHaZe]

So uakf.b, in lieu of our conversation, here is me requesting that you take down the risk devo host bot. Risk is a great genre but we cannot afford to have so many host bots. I would love to offer the public 1v1 and team games but since you are competing with me for FFA players, I cannot offer the risk community these luxuries. 2 lobbies = slower filling lobbies. and an impossibility to start a game during the slowest times of the day. I believe rod edited his message because he no longer supports the idea of multiple lobbies, but you'd have to ask him yourself.

Seriously Psyco? You're hilarious! Your game is not the same as Risk Devo 2.3b and the people that are playing 2.3b want to keep playing 2.3b. Just because your speaking in your own interests it doesnt mean everyone shares your opinions. That we cant affort 2 different riskgames is completly wrong, the bgn000 who hosted RiskDevo2.3b hosted 30 games a day if not more. You think this is the chance for you to shut down RiskDevo2.3b? I hope the ENT-Community is fair enough to give RiskDevo2.3b a shot.

But @ ENT, you'll have to add automodes to the RiskDevo 2.3b and a win-trigger just as bgn had it because right now its kinda gay when player 1 choses the modes. 90 % of the time they have no clue about the modes. Win-Trigger is needed because right now the game never ends. If you want informations about the standard-modes or what the win-trigger used to be just reply me here.

[psycomarauder]

Haze, you are incredibly selfish. I work pretty hard to provide the risk community the best experience possible. Just because you and your posse have your own agenda changes nothing. The fact is that if there was only one risk devo lobby, I could provide the risk community with team and 1v1 games. Whats the point of two lobbies hosting the same game? Players would much rather have one lobby that fills faster, this is undeniable.

Why doesnt ent just take over btanks and every other ranked league? It doesn't make sense that they host this map when it is already being hosted. If I request they host games that are already being hosted, will they do it simply because I requested it without any thought to how it effects the already existing communities?

[uakf.b]

Splitting the topic for organization, since this side discussion is unrelated to original suggestion.

[psycomarauder]

Thanks for splitting the topic for me uakf.b, I would like to hear your opinion on this.

[uakf.b]

Is risknextgen.com the one running all of these useless spam advertisement games? If so, these only degrade the already problematic Battle.net gamelist. Exploiting the gamelist further by posting lobbies that aren't legitimate, joinable games is ridiculous. Relating to this topic, __it also undermines your position about the two lobbies filling, considering that you're taking up space on the gamelist with games that are intentionally using a melee game type to show up more often, preventing Battle.net players from seeing games that they actually want to play and are actually joinable.__

I apologize if it's not related to risknextgen.com, it's just that the spam lobbies are almost as bad as those run by illegimimate hosting bot companies and players seeking free WoW gold or whatever (if not worse, considering that there's like five of them all saying the same damn thing!).


Ignoring the spam games, if risknextgen.com hosts the same map that players want to play, then we should stop hosting it since clearly they have more resources dedicated to the map. However, based on discussion on BGN, it seems that there are some important difference between the maps. That may no longer be the case though, of course.

[iownyaMouse]

you're quite right in they are different uakf, there are some fundamental differences and some people prefer one to the other. as mentioned before BGN000 used to host many games a day and i myself play quite frequently too.

most people have not realized ent has taken over the hosting so they do not know where to find the devo game, popularity should pick up as the find out more.

the devo community is also doing things to make the game more competitive and involving, so there should definitely be an ENT bot for the devo 2.3b game.

[uakf.b]

But doesn't risknextgen.com host the same map? Or why can't they?

[psycomarauder]

Yes, we are hosting the map. Uakf.b, imagine if icefrog released a new version of dota. And a group of players preferred the version of dota made last month, instead of the most recent version. Now also imagine dota was 1/50th as popular as it currently is. Essentially what you have a is a group of 15 or so players that prefer the old version despite it being completely asinine and against what is good for the community. As the creator of risk devo I once again respectfully ask that you stop hosting it. If it comes to it, I could host the 2.3b version. This is a very vocal minority that still wants the old map, but they dont take into consideration any of the benefits of one lobby, such as shorter load times, 1v1 risk, and team risk if there was only one ffa lobby.

If you check the website you'll see it completely caters to risk devo and we've literally built the site around the map. There are no important differences between the map except that there are more modes to choose from inside the game and the code is much more functional which reduces lag in game and allows additional features for bot hosting. What we have here is a clan leader who has been banned from the most recent version of risk devo telling his clan members to boycott the most recent version of risk simply because they can get away with preteaming and other behaviors frowned upon in risk because the risk league is heavily monitored by moderators who watch replays to ensure positive gameplay.

Lets take another semi popular game, maybe btanks for example, or custom footies. People are autohosting this map. Now imagine, 3 more people autohosted the map. Would this be good or bad for the map? Clearly bad, because the playerbase just isnt what it used to be. The case here is no different.

I'm sure anyone who has put as much effort into a gaming league built specifically for one map would be as equally crushed if you decided the siphon their players because a few people requested it, the same people who aren't allowed to play in the league for breaking rules repeatedly.

[Tobias-Riskin]

I've been playing risk maps on wc3 for these long 10 years. My favorite has always been the latest version of RiskDevo.

Psycomarauder has made the most current version, and the original creator Priwin has told me he loves the new update and voteable features. It is very clean, clear, and leans to each player involved in each round of the game. Preteaming has always been a big issue in ALL risk maps, but on the risknextgen.com's hosted bots there is a fundamental system of mods that work hard and fair to keep them out, or at least on 2 week bannings that dissuade these activities.

The real issue of late is the split caused by multiple hosting bots. I find that the split comes down to a 4-5 players on RNG.com's bot and 1-2 players on ENTgaming.net's bot, near every time I have checked. I've tried the old version on ENT's bot and it is a severely outdated map, with one person controlling the settings, and no win trigger.. Have not had one decent game due to this, as the settings have always been set strangely( fog of war, minimal useable units).

In my opinion allowing RNG.com to take over all things Risk would be highly beneficial to the community, faster lobby fills, and more central communications as per direction of gametypes available(i.e.: FFA, 1v1, teamgames, and a 2.3b).

Bringing new players to Risk into the game is hindered with each passing moment. New players join and download the map constantly, but due to the split, sometimes have to wait much too long for a lobby to fill, and give up before they even get to try it.

Just my two cents, thanks for reading, Tobias@west, Risk@east, Riskin@europe

[Kungen.]

Well about this subject i am kinda neutral since i enjoy both games, but people overall agree with era2.purplehaze and like that risk devo map more than psycomarauders risknextgen & riskdevo map, the biggest reason people play psycomarauders maps is because its ranked and people love the competition(and people from garena can join which makes it alot more players). now the Risknextgen map is so diffrent from Risk devo there can be, just the same units are used in that game, and in psycos riskdevo game its not the same as the other risk devo, its like comparing LoL/HoN/Dota2. everyone like diffrent that's just the way it is. Psyco if u want what's best for the risk community why dont u shut down ur 2 ffa's bots and host 1v1 & team games with them? @ Clan Ent i hope you keep hosting risk devo because it's what's best for everyone except psycomarauder. Sorry psyco but that is the truth

[Kungen.]

And this Priwin that tobias talked to is not the real risk maker, this guy just got the same name and is from canada. the real one is from Germany

[burnjehova]

psychomarauder's version of risk devolution is not the same as the one you're hosting on ent87. Most players would prefer to keep playing Risk Devolution Reborn 2.3b and not switch to a different version altogether.

I really hope you keep hosting it.

[Era2.PurpLeHaZe]

@ Psyco: You might be working hard for it. On the other hand you never took advice, ideas or anything of anyone serious even tho you asked for it. Your map is alot diffrent to the RiskDevo 2.3b in terms of gameplay, unitsystem and some other things. I personally prefer the 2.3b alot over yours even tho yours is okay too but its still another map. And its not like two risk lobbies would be bad now since both are filling. As you figured yourself the 2.3b bot was always more played by the wc3 guys, yours is filled with garena guys mainly. If you think having two bots of Risk Devo (even tho the games are not that similar) why dont you shut yours down and focus on the risknextgen map? I dont really see your point about that. If you were clever you would rank the 2.3b and everyone would play on your bots but since you wont do it its the wrong way to beg now to shutdown RiskDevo 2.3b just to get your own games filled quicker. Really dont understand you, always the same with you dude

@ Tobias: The Priwin you are speaking to is not the real Priwin which means hes not the game creator of 2.3b either. The real priwin is coming from Germany and inactive for ages, the one you speaking to is canadian and just claims to be the real priwin since he had the privilege to be able to use the name "Priwin".

[Kungen.]

yeah, the best solution would be if u kept hosting ur RNG map and started hosting the real risk devo instead of yours and rank them both. that would be the best honestly, but i guess ur to arrogant to realise it.

I and most others would love this idea so the question is, why dont you do it like this psyco?
If you want to controll the whole risk community hostbots psyco, all you gotta do is start hosting the real devo and rnak it.